- Sections
- P'ninat Mishpat
Ruling: We have discussed all of the claims of the suit. Now we will examine def’s offsetting claim of hityashnut (statute of limitation), that too many years have gone by since the events that caused the obligations. Def claims that this is a sign that the claims are untrue and that Israeli law does not allow such claims to be presented to court.

P'ninat Mishpat (761)
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
653 - Making Up for Unpaid Employment Benefits – part III
654 - Making Up for Unpaid Employment Benefits – part IV
655 - Receiving One’s Due in a Joint Building Project – part I
Load More
When there are grounds for payment, we do not say that the passing time without a claim is a proof of mechila and that beit din must be suspicious about the fact that the claim was raised late unless the suspicion has specific merit (Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 98:1-2). Thus, Halacha does not fundamentally recognize hityashnut. The likely difference in this matter between Halacha and secular law is that Halacha is more concerned with justice than with "proper procedure" (one should make his claim promptly and allow the obligated to "move on") (Mishpetei Uziel IV:28). Beit din need not be suspicious of the claim regarding the pension because def agrees with the claim’s factual basis.
Some poskim entertain the possibility of hityashnut entering Halacha based on accepted practice (see Pitchei Choshen, Halva’ah 2:(72)). Our beit din accepts this approach when there is such a minhag, including when it developed because of the law. However, this applies to obligations that are created due to agreement between the parties, not in a case like ours when it is based on damages, when def caused pl to rely upon him and failed to follow through.
Additional reasons that hityashnut does not apply here: Israeli law views hityashnut as a matter of court procedure, not of the forfeit of the obligation. Additionally, while the law applies to arbitration, religious courts were excluded from the law (because they are entitled to their own procedures). Finally, the law requires a litigant to invoke hityashnut at the first opportunity. Def did not do so at the first hearing, but only in later written submissions.

P'ninat Mishpat: A Flawed Used Car – part II
based on ruling 82171 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Elul 5784

Unlivable Apartment? – part I
Various Rabbis | Kislev 27 5779

An Abrupt End to a Rental
Various Rabbis | Tevet 5768

Return of Rental Check
Various Rabbis | Tevet 7 5778

Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit

Trying to Arrange Purchase of Land in Eretz Yisrael – part II
#229 Date and Place: 13 Tishrei 5670 (1909), Yafo
19 Sivan 5784

Limits of Interest Rate for Loan with Heter Iska – part I
based on ruling 80033 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Sivan 8 5782

Payments after a Gradual End of Employment
(Based on ruling 82024 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Nissan 5783

Raffle of Property in Eretz Yisrael for Tzedaka
Igrot Hare’aya – Letters of Rav Kook: – #220
18 Sivan 5784

Ask the Rabbi: Fundamental Questions about Lifnei Iver
Rabbi Daniel Mann | Shevat 5785
Daf Yomi Sanhedrin Daf 49
R' Eli Stefansky | 6 Shevat 5785
